Dunn v. Yager
2011 Miss. LEXIS 204
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Dunn sued Dr. Yager for injuries from Tegretol causing Stevens–Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and blindness after a 1995 off‑label prescription for neuropathic pain; Yager prescribed Tegretol following prior treatments and testing; Dunn alleges lack of informed consent, failure to warn of severe adverse reactions, and failure to monitor with blood tests.
- Dunn’s treatment history: forklift accident in 1993, prolonged prior treatment with limited relief, referral to Yager in 1995, and subsequent SJS developing after May 1995 medication use.
- Tegretol’s status in 1995: FDA-approved for seizures, not neuropathic pain, with off‑label use common; PDR warned of hematologic risks (e.g., agranulocytosis, aplastic anemia) and SJS.
- Procedural posture: multiple defendants settled; Yager remained as the sole defendant; Dunn asserted three theories: lack of informed consent, failure to warn of severe reactions, and failure to monitor blood work.
- Mississippi long‑arm jurisdiction dispute: circuit court held Mississippi long‑arm statute (13‑3‑57) applicable based on injury in Mississippi and Yager’s Mississippi connections; de novo review adopted for jurisdiction issues.
- Trial and appellate posture: after twenty days of trial, jury returned verdict for Yager; Dunn appealed on multiple issues including jurisdiction, closing argument rights, expert substitution, use of certain evidence, settlement references, and informed‑consent instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mississippi may exercise personal jurisdiction over Yager | Dunn | Yager | Yes; long‑arm tort prong applies; due process satisfied |
| Whether closing argument rights under Article 3, Section 25 were violated | Dunn claims right to address jury personally | Yager | No reversible error; pro se participation properly managed under standards; rights bounded by procedure |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion in denying substitution of Dunn's expert | Dunn | Yager | No; court acted within case management order and discretion; substitution denied due to timing and prejudice concerns |
| Whether the court abused discretion in excluding Dr. Gould’s deposition/testimony | Dunn | Yager | No; General Motors safeguards on nonwitness experts applied; references to prior affiliation prejudicial |
| Whether the disclosure of settlements with other defendants was proper | Dunn | Yager | Yes; informing existence of settlements with limiting instructions to avoid prejudice was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer System, 897 So.2d 972 (Miss. 2004) (long‑arm injury accrual supports jurisdiction when injury occurs in state)
- Sorrells v. R & R Custom Coach Works, Inc., 636 So.2d 668 (Miss. 1994) (long‑arm torts do not require the injury location to be within state for jurisdiction)
- Home, — (Miss. 2004) (discussion of injury location within Mississippi for jurisdiction (cited within Horne line))
- General Motors Corp. v. Jackson, 636 So.2d 310 (Miss. 1992) (admissibility of nonwitness experts; curative instructions; prejudice vs. probative value)
- Jaмison v. Kilgore, 903 So.2d 45 (Miss. 2005) (known risks and materiality in informed consent analysis)
- Palmer v. Biloxi Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 564 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1990) (causation in informed consent requires proof patient would have withheld consent and that treatment caused injury)
- Whittington v. Mason, 905 So.2d 1261 (Miss. 2005) (material known risks require expert testimony to establish materiality)